« first day (3204 days earlier)      last day (982 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

12:21 AM
@VoteDukakis It's balphabetical.
2 hours later…
2:03 AM
Ugh, morning...
Any milk delivered to your porch?
No, instead I just had a dream of fighting online poker betting spammer on Android.SE with 2-layer shortened links that lead to domain name samyang... the dream was so clear, it didn't make any sense.
(the nightmare of being SE mod)
Also, it's way too milky
Yes, I don't like milky milk. Prefer the almondy kind.
3:00 AM
How do you search through someone's posts for text that isn't rendered?
3:54 AM
@forest With on-site search?
On-site search seems to ignore text that isn't rendered.
E.g. hover text for links added in the answer itself.
What type are you looking for?
Invisible characters or <script> type stuff?
For example, a link [link name][grover1996database] in the post.
[grover1996database]: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9605043 "Lov K. Grover, ‘A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search’, arXiv:quant-ph/9605043, preprint of paper in Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computation, ACM STOC 1996, pp. 212–219."
With this at the bottom.
That results in this text being shown on hover.
I just had a look and couldn't find anything.
@forest that's rendered in HTML, though
should be alt=
4:02 AM
Does the on-site search actually look at HTML like that?
Not sure, though SEDE definitely could
Makyen says: SEDE can see it, also search for "rendered" in Charcoal's chat for a few more comments.
Well that's a pain.
SEDE makes me fill out captchas.
I am.
4:10 AM
Also, only a CAPTCHA the first time; until you are forgotten.
I have ethical reasons not to solve captchas. In particular, I do not support murder.
(And yes, reCaptcha is used to train drones for drone strikes)
If you are logged in you shouldn't get 1 capt.
I am logged in but I do get them. To be fair, I also use Tor.
It might be extra sensitive to that.
They make for interesting YouTube videos.
Tor supports all sorts of illegal activity, including one you don't support, especially piracy; which deprives your favorite artists of their paycheck.
Torrents don't really work over Tor anyway. But direct downloads do!
4:17 AM
Torrent sites recommend Tor, and warn that you are certain to get a letter from a lawyer if you use a torrent directly and the material is copyright.
Any torrent site that recommends Tor has gotta be malicious. Tor doesn't work with UDP whereas torrents use UDP, so torrents bypass Tor and expose your IP.
You sure they aren't recommending VPNs?
Just a sec.
There's one VPN with the name TorGuard, which is stupid.
But it has nothing to do with Tor Project.
Yes, VPN. Since I don't do that I was mistaken about the terminology. Still, Tor is used for DarkWeb (isn't it?).
Like 0.0001% of it is. The "dark web" is pretty much all myth. In reality it's just a couple sites that end in .onion and which have nothing exciting on them.
It's massively overhyped in the media and on YouTube.
4:24 AM
Nothing exciting?!, being able to buy anything sounds somewhat exciting; but I don't need the Internet for that, I live near a big city.
Well if "anything" is a couple of common drugs, yeah.
But the whole black market thing has far less than you'd think.
And there are already sites like that on the regular internet anyway.
Here is page after page, from a site that seems tame: thedarkweblinks.com/page/11
> Browsing deep web without NordVPN is not safe. If you think you are using Tor Browser, you are safe. No you are not.
It's just a scam site.
Everything it links to (each one I saw at least) has got to be a scam.
Sadly the "dark web" is 99.9% scams, 0.01% legit stuff. So many people believe there's some deep underbelly of the internet there that scammers have a field day.
I'm not trying to sell you something, or on the veracity of the site, just a long list to look at.
Yeah I know. My point is just that what it links to is not legit.
Same with all the "hitman services" you sometimes see.
4:30 AM
Those are probably the police.
I'm sure some are, but most of them are actually copy pastes of previous ones using the same website template, but a different name, all run by the same guy.
Many of them have the same spelling/grammar/idiom idiosyncrasies. :P
Yup, got to go to town in person.
Pretty much the only thing the "dark web" has is a bit of child porn here and there, a couple of crappy sites selling low-quality drugs, random blogs, and a lot of scams.
Here you can go to the store and buy some things, fairly limited if they don't know you. It's common to offer most people tax free cigarettes.
But can you get weed? :P
4:34 AM
Oh lucky. I have to get it from a neighbor.
Neighborhood is cheaper.
Here you go, 36 million results: California weed store - obviously you'll find some false hits, but you can clearly see that some have a nice store that you can walk in and show ID (if you're under 25). Entirely legal.
GTG, thanks for the chat.
4:59 AM
@forest Here is a picture of an outdoor event, see all those tents ...
5:44 AM
That's a lot of people.
6:32 AM
40 messages moved to Chimney
6:47 AM
@rene you are.... a mother?!
rene, Mother of Flowers
@ShadowWizard no, I went to visit my mother (and dad).
@rene Are they also blurry?
7:30 AM
@Magisch No, they are clear:
user image
1 hour later…
8:38 AM
@rene so... you visit them only twice a year?! Bad flower!
8:56 AM
@ShadowWizard k
@ShadowWizard k
9:48 AM
@Tinkeringbell someone might want to delete the NSFW image so 10K users won't get any nasty surprises meta.stackexchange.com/questions/328077/…
@Mari-LouA How badly NSFW are they? (I'm at work myself .... )
@Tinkeringbell I'd do it myself but I lack the rep and no longer see the offending post
Image of male genitalia
That's okay. Ah... blegh. Lemme try and sneak in an edit... Problem is I don't have a spam mask so I need to pick a moment when my coworker isn't looking ;)
Well if anyone else is listening I suppose they can edit the post too. "Bleugh" is perfect description btw :)
@Mari-LouA It's gone :)
9:52 AM
it's locked, you need a diamond
At least, it's now hidden in the revision history ;)
I made a teeny tiny window, then quickly opened and hit edit XD
deleted:1 url:imgur score:..-3 is dangerous...
10:55 AM
7 messages moved to Chimney
1 hour later…
12:00 PM
@NoDistractionWizard very dangerous!
The horror! :P
-10 ... lol
12:28 PM
That's a terrifying image
24 hours later...
I mean that screenshot that Shadow posted
2 hours later…
2:12 PM
> // this is needed to reclaim a bunch of localStorage crap from the next/previous button experiment
Comments tell a lot about emotions in a dev team ;)
// Dieses ganze Macro ist nur notwendig, weil Sattler damals keinen plan von verzeichnisstruktur hatte
The pile-on of votes here is just absurd, unwarranted and unrepresentative of any kind of valuation of the person who simply wanted to offer a suggestion. Did this really need to be driven down to -30? This was an absolutely horrible thing to do to someone and everyone that participated should feel the need for emotional development.Tim Post ♦ 1 min ago
Come on, Tim. Is that really necessary?
translated: This entire macro is only needed because $formerDev doesn't know about proper folder structure
Apparently we are now demonizing downvoters.
Tim has a point there
2:21 PM
It's just not a good one.
Every single downvoter probably had a good reason to downvote but in aggregate and compared to how downvotes work on main it feels like an avalanche
It's an actively toxic point.
We're now being told that downvotes are bad and mean, and downvoters are stunted in emotional growth.
Gotta disagree. Then again I'm on the record of complaining about the same thing on MSO: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/381212/…
Apparently votes are now "valuation of the person" instead of the content.
Nothing indicates the need for emotional development like a full sentence of bold italic.
@Magisch I very much disagree with you on that. It's a short hop from Meta to Main for the exact same behaviour.
2:23 PM
-30 is unnecessary on main too
-5 sends the same message
"I extra dislike you wrote that" why?
But that's a discussion that's been rehashed several times that doesn't bear repeating.
@fbueckert Yep.
@TimPost Great. So now we're mean.
2:25 PM
As far as answers on main is concerned -5 is low quality and -30 is too. The only thing -30 indicates to me with any sort of regularity is that there was some attached meta drama
If that makes you feel happy, well, yay for you.
@fbueckert What are you even talking about?
@fbueckert This is just hyperbole. I'm calling out a massive unwarranted pile on that resulted in someone feeling terrible for just trying to participate.
If you wanna call that "demonizing", I have a link to a form where you can request account deletion.
If you look towards the secondary goal of downvotes (being a prompt for posters to examine their post and learn for future posts) then going too hard is more detriment then positive. This is strictly true for feature requests, I feel.
-5 does "we don't want this" just fine, as does an upvoted answer saying no. Even if not meant that way, -30 makes people who don't have a thick skin or aren't so familiar with voting culture here feel like it's meant as "go away"
Sometimes people get really hurt in ways that don't leave bruises, but it feels like an assault nonetheless.
Mind, I know my opinion is in the minority here but I think voting on meta needs an overhaul and maybe different categories of posts need to be treated differently
2:28 PM
We're going to be taking a hard look at the usefulness of downvotes and comments on meta.
I'm ... really not sure why that question got downvoted... it's a discussion and it makes a reasonable point about our system text being a bit too terse. We don't need to protect and preserve the system the way it is like it's in a bubble... things can and should change and improve. That's OK. Was their suggested text perfect? No... but ... it's still a worthy discussion.
This just can't keep happening.
Harkening back to the post of mine I linked it's a pattern I observe over and over and over. Someone makes a FR or a thread or whatever thinking meta can help them or they can participate and get a massively downvoted post out of it with a dozen people telling them why they're wrong and/or outside site norms. All of those aren'T strictly speaking wrong observations but it does not make the person likely to come back or give meta another chance
Even having 250+ answers on MSO and 17k rep on MSE I find myself with a bit of fear every time I hit the post button because meta is a fickle beast and requires specific phrasing and tone to not get ton-of-brick'd. My 2cents
@TimPost Is it? It's a continuation of the exact process that led to this.
@Catija There's a huge sentiment I've seen that people don't find those discussions useful, and I can well imagine people felt that way especially while the suggested rewordings where still there... I wonder even how many people actually saw the discussion tag on a question that looked kinda feature requesting-y...
2:31 PM
@fbueckert Whatever dude.
SE probably has empirical research how system message wordings affect outcomes. If there's an improvement there, go for it. If you can make posts better and users happier by changing a message or close reason, why would you be against it? It's at least worth discussing
@TimPost so limit the score, e.g. don't let users downvote when the post is already at -8. Or -5. I'm totally against this feature, but looks like that's where SE is headed anyway.
Good to know that meta participation and actively wanting to improve quality is now being mean. You can see exactly why people downvoted, Tim. It's literally in a comment.
@Tinkeringbell If they don't find the discussions useful... then just pass them by? They're extremely useful to us and when they're downvoted below -8, they're really easy for us to miss.
Well, the fact that the post is now anonimized tell something though, though I believe the OP is also active on MSO (which I put a comment on cross-site dupe)
2:34 PM
@Magisch That's definitely true, and something that needs working on... But Tim has a point, the question already reached -doubledigits on the first day. There's no need to drive in the disagreement or discontent days after... It's also very discouraging for someone to see each time they open SE
@fbueckert How about a much more highly-voted one:
I think the suggestions here are a bit too conversational for system messages but that doesn't mean the current phrasing can't be improved. It's also worth remembering that system messages like close reasons are network wide and can't be customized, so making them overly descriptive may cause problems... they need to be kinda bland but still helpful. — Catija ♦ May 9 at 15:28
@Catija And that's why people can upvote.
Why, exactly, does that make downvoters mean?
And honestly, attacking them? Seriously? Best way ever to railroad the discussion into nonconstructiveness.
oh, also, the needed "I haven't voted on that post yet though" (because I really haven't)
I think you're reading too much into tim's comment
@Catija That's true. But in the same way voting up/down when done correctly can show what kinds of discussion the community wants you all to pay attention to, and that's hopefully important in some way to SE too
2:36 PM
@Magisch No need to read into anything. It's right there. In bold and italics, no less.
Not every comment that disagrees with meta norms is evidence the network is going down the drain and evidence of a niceness over content agenda
It reads fairly innocously to me. I can for instance picture someone reading that and going "Okay, I should probably re-think making -31 out of that -30 out of reflex" without reading some sort of malice into it
@ShadowWizard We're going to test a few options. We want folks to be able to say "THAT IDEA WOULD MELT THE UNIVERSE NOOOOO" but we can't do it at the expense of people's dignity.
How about a seperate "Agree / Disagree" indicator for feature requests
that is largely what these votes are anyways
@Magisch Upvote or "meh" (no vote)
@Magisch If that's the system they want to make, then SE can make it. That's not what it is right now, though.
2:38 PM
Maybe asking the community to help is part of making it into something better
I can't functionally (or programmatically) tell the difference between something that's -5 or -30 except that the latter likely got visited by more people with downvote privileges
Finally, I believe we previously had already the same discussion about how "unwelcoming" the system message like, like those cold, emotionless, compiler message
@TimPost well, in any form, expect more than a few users to leave SE as result, as I can see at least part of @fbueckert point of view. The part I see and also feel bad about is that it's a way to "silence" users and block them from expressing their opinion. (i.e. downvote means "I don't agree with this" so not being able to downvote means you can't express your opinion anymore.)
I left a comment under the question @TimPost but if you rather take it here, will work for me
"% of people with vote privileges upvoted this" is more useful then # of downvotes
It feels
2:39 PM
@ShadowWizard I'm good with that.
If people really want to leave because they can't negatively vote on other people's ideas, well, maybe they really should be moving on.
Lets be real people will express negative reactions to ideas always even if it's just by upvoting an answer that says its a bad idea
FR: abolish downvote :)
@Magisch But that's the CORRECT behavior!!!
That's what we need!!!!
I agree
I find an answer outlining counterpoints being upvoted a better and more useful signal then downvotes on the question
2:42 PM
Because downvotes on the question can be procedural, emotional or actual disagreement
A better realization of stakeholders needs to be woven into the system.
While upvotes on counterpoints are useful signal
I'm frankly not convinced meta needs downvotes at all
That's how it's supposed to work. But it's not how it does work. People hear "downvotes on meta are different" and change how they use them entirely.
The "Do I really care about this enough to have an opinion?" bar is way too low if you can just click a vote. You're more burning through a queue of things than actually expressing an opinion on stuff you care about.
2:43 PM
outside of telling people they should have searched for a dupe which considering meta and the utility of search is a tall order sometimes they're not that useful
If that bar, to be a stakeholder made you write a paragraph or two, or find some other paragraphs you could upvote that mostly said what you feel, then that's different.
But right now there's nothing stopping anyone from just filtering feature requests and downvoting every single one in succession, and some people actually do that. The system is broken.
We really like meming on all the people who come to meta and dont search and make bad suggestions but the truth is "do your research" on meta is a bit harder then you'd think as a regular
We said the platform isn't for discussion back in the days when we had uservoice. We said it's just too gamified in all the wrong ways to be put to subjective use like that. And then we did exactly that and said cmon get meta it's perfect for subjective use.
For instance, having "We should foo the bar" downvoted to -30 is less useful then having "No because then the baz would also be foo'd" at +30 because then you could look at that and go "If we could find a way to avoid fooing the baz this could work" instead of "damn, the community hates this"
And then, like so many other things, we never revisited it to check and see if it was still meeting our goals. Hell, back then, we didn't even have goals.
2:46 PM
I'll wait until the needed system is done. Until then, I won't participate because the system is currently broken.
But our main engagement platform is driving away 100 people for every 1 that it attracts, and those are seriously older numbers, it's likely worse now.
@TimPost I still find it a bit harsh to tell people that are currently working with a broken system that they need emotional development though :/ As you just saw, it only moves anger/disappointment from one person to others...
@Tinkeringbell I edited that comment because it wasn't the right way to say it.
@TimPost Yep. It's been a long time complaint... we had a great platform for objective content and then squashed it into meta without making any real changes to address the subjectivity. It needs ... something different.
@TimPost Ah, that looks better :) my apologies, I didn't see that.
2:48 PM
But if we poke at it, it starts to bloom again - people will fight tooth and nail saying they have the right to downvote whatever they want and other people just need to get a thicker skin. That's .. emotional immaturity and I'm going to call it as I see it.
I heard Discourse is a good platform for discussion
They're still discussing that.
This discussion led me to think of a grand idea... low chance it will become something worthy of sharing, but if it will happen, I'll post a feature request. (6-8 days ;))
Hopefully by then downvotes will be limited, so it won't break some negative record. :P
Putting shimmery glitter effects on negative scores would be nice, but I don't think it's practical in the long run.
Don't worry about the downvote, but worry about the super-rapid un/accepting answer...
2:53 PM
@TimPost Perhaps. Of course people should not think of it as a right to downvote whatever just because they feel like it, but the system is also still sending a message that you've been granted a privilege to downvote, and some sense of duty to use it to express your opinion of a post. And I think most people in here that got kinda mad at your first comment revision did not belong to the first group, but honestly thought they were doing the second.
Badges for very negative scores.
@TimPost I have no issues with requiring an invested argument if you disagree.
My biggest issue was with the way you had worded your disagreement with the existing action. If you want to change the system, great.
Lambasting users for using the system as designed? Not great.
@Alex That's not going to help. The problem with this post was that days after it was posted, and basically off the front page, people still found it, and thought it necessary to hammer another nail in the coffin. To the point that the post is now dissociated. That says something about feelings getting hurt, and is something that can certainly require a bit more careful thought about how to prevent in the future
> Unpopular Hero: Gold badge; Post a feature request or bug report that got a while having a score of -20 or less.
@ShadowWizard This was a discussion.
2:57 PM
And then we're right back to equating downvotes with being welcoming.
Not a feature request or bug, so not really an applicable badge ;)
@Tinkeringbell too bad ;)
@ShadowWizard Great. Thouth my lowest scoring post is -31 and it's a . I want a badge for that too.
So... now I can ask for disassociation from my post because my feeling hurts?
2:59 PM
@Tinkeringbell What post are we talking about? (Yeah, I probably shouldn't just jump in the middle of a conversation with my brilliant ideas without knowing what you're talking about.)
But if we do that, spammers should get badges too! :D
(while I'm rolling on the chair laughing behind the monitor)
@ShadowWizard But what privileges should Gold Badges for negative content get?
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

« first day (3204 days earlier)      last day (982 days later) »